The War With Mexico
The actual circumstances
of the war were far different from today's conventional wisdom.
by Erik Peterson
April 25, 1996 will mark the 150th anniversary
of the outbreak of the Mexican War. Today, most Americans have been taught
that it was an imperialistic war of aggression, and Mexicans cite the "illegal
seizure" of their territories to justify the current colonization of the
American Southwest. In fact, by contemporary and even by today's standards,
the war was far from unjustified.
The conflict began with Texas. When the colony of New Spain broke free
from its European namesake in 1821 and christened itself Mexico, it inherited
vast lands north of the Rio Grande that had been only nominally under Spanish
control. Texas was a remote wilderness, constantly terrorized by Commanches,
with a Mexican population of only 3,500.
Mexico could have concentrated on subduing the Indians and settling
its northern territories. Instead, almost from the first days of independence,
the country was wracked by a series of political upheavals. The small,
predominantly white, Spanish-speaking elite consumed all of its energies
in fratricidal power struggles, while the Mestizo and Indian majority remained
mired in poverty.
In order to legitimize its claim on Texas, Mexico needed to occupy it.
Since it was unable to do this itself, the Mexican government enlisted
the help of immigration agents or empresarios to recruit settlers
from the United States. The empresarios, chief among them Steven
F. Austin, acted as representatives of the Mexican government. They were
authorized to offer immigrants cheap land in return for accepting Mexican
citizenship and converting to Roman Catholicism. The Americans appear to
have made a good faith effort to fulfill the first requirement but often
sidestepped the second.
The new settlers created a frontier version of the plantation-based,
slave-owning society of the neighboring Southern states. By the early 1830s,
however, Mexico began to fear that the empresarios had been too
successful: American immigrants outnumbered Mexicans four to one, and seemed
likely to identify with the land of their birth.
wanted [war]; Mexico
to wage it."
General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna became President of Mexico in 1833,
and in 1835 abrogated the constitution and declared himself dictator. This
act alone provoked rebellion in seven Mexican states, including Texas,
but Texans had additional reasons for discontent. Determined to reverse
the Americanization of the territory, Santa Anna had decreed an end to
American immigration, abolished slavery, repealed the local political autonomy
Texans had enjoyed, and announced he would forcibly settle the land with
It is hard to imagine policies better calculated to rouse the ire of
free-spirited Texans. In 1836 they overthrew local Mexican garrisons and
declared independence. Santa Anna promptly invaded Texas with an army of
3,000 men, but after several engagements was decisively beaten by Sam Houston's
men at the battle of San Jacinto. Santa Anna was captured, and in order
to gain freedom agreed to recognize Texan independence, with the Rio Grande
as its border. He later disavowed this treaty, and Mexico waged a nine-year
guerrilla war against its former territory.
The United States recognized Texas as an independent republic in 1837,
and recognition soon followed from France, Great Britain, Holland, and
Belgium. Despite strong Texan sentiment to join the Union, the American
government demurred; Mexico threatened war if Texas were annexed, and the
United States was unwilling to upset the delicate balance between slave
and free states.
The presidential election of 1844 brought into office a firm believer
in what soon became known as "manifest destiny." James K. Polk was determined
to complete the annexation of Texas, buy California from the Mexicans,
and bluff the British into ceding the better part of Oregon. The Texans
were impatient for a settlement, and Polk's predecessor, John Tyler, had
welcomed the Lone Star State into the Union three days before he left office.
If the United States had continued to hesitate because of Mexican sentiments,
Texas might have remained independent or even accepted protectorate status
from Britain or France.
As for California, Mexico's position was so weak it was bound to be
supplanted soon, if not by the U.S. then by Britain, Russia, or perhaps
even the Mormons. Polk had reason to believe that Mexico would be willing
to sell. In the meantime, if Oregon joined the Union the careful balance
of free and slave states could be maintained.
When Texas joined the United States in March, 1845, Mexico immediately
broke off diplomatic relations and threatened war. Polk sent General Zachary
Taylor with 2,000 men to protect the new state from Mexican depredation
while annexation was accomplished. Nevertheless, Polk had every reason
to seek a diplomatic solution with Mexico, partly because he was afraid
war might break out with Britain over the Oregon question. He decided to
send a special emissary, John Slidell, to Mexico with instructions to resolve
all outstanding issues.
On the question that had caused the rupture – annexation of Texas –
Slidell was not to compromise. Mexico had been unable to reconquer her
wayward territory, whose independence had been recognized by the major
powers. By refusing to accept the loss of Texas and by persisting in border
skirmishes, Mexico had perpetuated a crisis on the American border that
could have led to European intervention. Texas was now part of the United
Several other matters were open to negotiation. One was the settlement
of $3.25 million in claims by Americans on the Mexican government. Mexico
had recognized these claims under international arbitration, but had later
refused to pay. Another issue was final determination of the Texas-Mexico
border. As a Mexican territory, the Texas border had been at the Nueces
River, but after their revolution the Texans claimed the Rio Grande as
the border – without, however, establishing full authority in the disputed
territory. Slidell was authorized to release Mexico from the $3.25 million
obligation in return for recognition of the Rio Grande border. This was
a reasonable offer, especially since Mexico had already, in effect, declared
war, and unpaid international obligations were then considered grounds
for belligerency. By accepting this offer, Mexico could easily have avoided
Besides these immediate questions, Slidell was to offer $15 million
but, if necessary, propose considerably more for the Mexican lands stretching
from Texas to the Pacific. If the entire tract was not for sale, he was
to offer $5 million for New Mexico.
The Mexican government, threatened by a militant opposition and wracked
by internal dissension, refused even to receive Slidell. This was a fatal
mistake. The rebuff left Polk with no means to negotiate a peaceful settlement.
He ordered Zachary Taylor into the disputed region between the Nueces River
and the Rio Grande, but he warned Taylor not to seek engagement with any
Mexican troops he might encounter. In the meantime, he made preparations
to ask Congress to declare war, but Mexico forced the issue.
Mexico had a standing
army of 27,000 men versus an American army of only 7,200.
On April 23, 1846, sixteen hundred Mexican troops crossed the Rio Grande.
Two days later they ambushed a U.S. Army patrol, inflicting sixteen casualties
and taking prisoners. Mexico "shed American blood upon American soil,"
and the war began.
The Mexicans, of course, saw the war as a just effort to retake what
was rightfully theirs. Why, though, would they make war on the United States
when they had been unable to subdue a breakaway territory? Astonishingly
enough, Mexico fully expected to win. It had a standing army of 27,000
men versus an American army of only 7,200. French advisors to the Mexican
army had an exaggerated estimate of its fighting prowess, which the Mexicans
gladly believed. The generals intended not only to take back Texas but
to annex parts of the United States. Indeed, the Mexican dictator of the
moment, General Mariano Paredes, boasted that he would not negotiate until
the Mexican flag flew over the capitol dome in Washington. The Mexicans
were also counting on diplomatic and even military support from Britain,
but the Oregon issue was resolved just before they attacked.
In his two-volume work, The War With Mexico, Pulitzer prize-winning
historian Justin H. Smith described the war fever among the generals: "Mexico
wanted [war]; Mexico threatened it, Mexico issued orders to wage it." By
no stretch of the imagination was Mexico thrust into an unwanted war by
The military history of the Mexican War makes interesting reading and
is a credit to the tradition of American arms.
Throughout the two-year
campaign, small but superbly led and highly motivated American units consistently
outfought the Mexicans. The Mexican army, impressive enough in numbers
and parade-ground panache, was utterly unable to fight a determined adversary.
By accepting payment,
Mexico ratified the transfer of payment.
The American war effort was not all glorious. Although the Regular Army
behaved with proper discipline, some of the volunteer militia units conducted
themselves so badly they created guerrilla resistance among previously
noncombatant Mexican civilians. Also, the war was all-too-effective training
for America's fratricidal tragedy just 13 years later. Among the junior
officers sent to Mexico, 200 would go on to be generals in the Union and
The Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo ended the war in 1848 on terms advantageous
to the United States. Mexico agreed to cede California, Arizona, Nevada,
Utah, and the western parts of Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico – in all,
525,000 square miles of land that contained virtually no Mexicans.
All but overlooked today is the fact that the United States forgave
the $3.25 million debt, and paid Mexico $15 million for the ceded territories.
According to the rules of 19th century warfare, after routing Mexico's
armies and occupying its capital, the United States could have seized territory
under whatever terms it liked. To have paid what it considered a reasonable
amount before fighting an expensive war – estimated to have cost
$100 million – was a magnanimous gesture.
The Mexican position today is that the United States stole Mexican territory.
However, Mexico could have refused the money or promptly returned it. By
accepting payment it ratified the transfer. Furthermore, only five years
later, Mexico agreed to sell an additional parcel of land to the United
States, which was to be used for the southern route of the transcontinental
railway. The Gadsden Treaty of 1853 settled a number of disputes about
the post-1848 U.S.-Mexico border and secured 19 million additional acres
of territory for the United States. In return, the United States paid Mexico
$10 million. There was no threat of war or coercion. This freely negotiated
settlement of the new border and additional transfer of land were further
ratification by Mexico of the consequences of war with the United States.
In conclusion, the United States had ample to reason to pursue, in 1846,
the course that it did. As a practical matter, the real issue decided by
the war was whether Britain, France, Russia, Mexico or the United States
would acquire the vast territories of the American Southwest. President
Polk resolved the question in favor of the United States in a refreshingly
straightforward nineteenth century manner.
Eric Peterson lives in Oregon and
writes about American history.
• • •
BACK TO TOP • •
What They Are Saying Now
Voz Fronteriza is one of several irredentist,
anti-white publications supported by California taxpayers. On its masthead,
it calls itself "a quarterly Chicano Mexicano student publication founded
in 1975 . . . recognized as an official campus print media [sic]
by the Associated Student Media Board of U.C. San Diego." This is the lead
of a typical article:
"In August of 1996, a large gathering of the most racist/fascist
European settlers will take place in San Diego, Ca. The objective of this
gathering is to consolidate and develop a program which will further erode
the democratic rights of the majority of the people in occupied America
(United States) and hold steady the present U.S. socio-political policy
leading to the genocide and deportation of the Mexicano, African, and other
The anticipated "gathering" is the Republican National Convention.
The article goes on to explain that "the right-wing plans of GOP pigs such
as [Pete] Wilson, Gingrich, Helms, Buchannon [sic], etc. are genocidal,
pure and simple." [Voz Fronteriza, May 1995, p. 10.]
refer either to "the 'so-called' border between Aztlan and Mexico" or use
the Spanish expression la Frontera Falsa. They call Mexicans la
raza, "the race," or our gente, "our people." The Mex-American
nation of Aztlan is to be won through "armed struggle."
The centerfold of each issue is to something called "Definitions and
Descriptions of Oppression," a kind of catechism of anti-white nationalism,
which includes definitions like this:
"Race is an arbitrary socio-biological category created by Europeans
(white men) in the 15th century and used to assign human worth and social
status with themselves as the model of humanity, with the purpose of establishing
white skin access to sources of power."
Likewise, "A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized
the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies
to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United
States . . . ." Naturally, "people of color cannot be racists."
On the back page is a Poesia section, in which young Chicanos
vent righteous rage in blank verse. A recent issue offered two works, one
called "Stupid American" and the other, "What the hell are you looking
at, old white man?" both every bit as bad as they sound.
• • •
BACK TO TOP • •
A Government of Wolves
The tyrannical rule of the
U.S. Supreme Court.
reviewed by Thomas Jackson
The federal government is unquestionably in lower
repute than at any time since General Beauregard gave the order to open
fire on Fort Sumter. Judicial Dictatorship explains why, and does
it so thoroughly it will shame even confirmed enemies of federal power
into thinking they have been too indulgent with Washington. William Quirk
and Randall Bridwell place the blame for increasing federal tyranny squarely
on the U.S. Supreme Court – though at the same time they fault American
citizens for submitting to fetters that a brave people could throw off
at any time.
William J. Quirk &
R. Randall Bridwell
1995, 143 pp.
The heart of the authors' argument is that by arrogating to itself the
right to interpret the Constitution, the Supreme Court has seized decision-making
power over every important national question. They point out that this
is a form of minority rule that is deeply inimical not only to the original
notions of the founders but to the idea of democracy itself.
A court's inquiry into the constitutionality of a law is called judicial
review. As the authors explain, it "assumes that the president and Congress,
the branches responsible to the people, either cannot understand or will
not respect the Constitution and the Supreme Court does understand it and
will respect it." Federal judges always know best.
itself is silent on who is to be its final arbiter. Thomas Jefferson foresaw
that any branch of government that had this right exclusively would soon
rule the others: "Whoever hath an absolute authority to interpret any written
or spoken laws, it is He who is truly the Law-Giver to all intents and
purposes, and not the person who first wrote or spoke them." Jefferson
has been proven right. The Supreme Court routinely invalidates laws passed
by elected assemblies and interprets laws in ways never intended by law-makers.
Jefferson thought that each branch should interpret the Constitution
for itself. Congress would legislate in accordance with its interpretation
but the President could refuse to carry out any law that violated his interpretation.
The Supreme Court could also express its views on constitutionality. Jefferson
realized that this would cause friction and could hobble government, but
that was exactly what he wanted. In his view, every new law eroded the
freedom of the people, so it was just as well that legislation should require
approval by all three branches of government rather than just one. Of the
three, the judiciary was least qualified to be the sole interpreter
of the Constitution because it was not answerable to the people.
Equal, contending branches of government were the essence of "checks
and balances," but today there is nothing short of the very cumbersome
process of constitutional amendment to check or balance the power of the
judiciary. The men who fought England to escape the burdens of monarchy
would be astonished to find their descendants now ruled by modern-day equivalents
of the Judges of Israel.
The judicial system is supposed to mete out justice to individuals.
Its decisions are supposed to affect only the parties to a case. However,
by assuming the right to strike down laws and interpret those it does not
strike down, the federal judiciary now passes new laws and amends the Constitution
at will. As the authors put it, "the opinions of the Supreme Court are
the government of the United States."
Protecting the Minority
Courts that flout majority views claim that their role is to protect
the minority. However, the theory that the majority's rapaciousness must
always be checked by wise guardians is openly anti-democratic. If the majority
cannot be trusted to deal fairly with the minority, why should it be trusted
with anything at all? Moreover, majority rapaciousness has always been
more theoretical than real. In Britain, for example, final authority rests
with whatever majority Parliament can muster, but where is the tyranny
a Supreme Court should suppress?
In democracies there are rarely permanent majorities. Sooner or later
everyone finds himself on the wrong side of a vote. Democracy therefore
has built-in restraints on the ruthlessness of winners, since they may
well be losers when the next question comes up for a vote. Even if they
have the power to do so, courts should not lightly set aside a decision
that has made its way through a legislature. As Learned Hand put it, "a
law which can get itself enacted is almost sure to have behind it a support
which is not wholly unreasonable."
Some of the most obvious judicial tyrannies have had to do with race
– courts force Americans to live with, employ, and go to school with people
not of their choosing. But as the authors point out, federal judges have
struck down majority decisions about everything from abortion and treatment
of criminals, to standards for obscenity and education.
In one case, a judge wrote a 169-page opinion that completely overhauled
the South Carolina prison system – and he did it singlehandedly. In
North Carolina, another judge specified exactly what recreations should
be made available to prisoners, including "horseshoes, croquet, badminton
[and] paddleball." He even required annual state tournaments in chess,
checkers and backgammon for inmates. One federal judge saw fit to specify
the temperature of the hot water in a mental institution, and in another
famous case, a Missouri judge ordered an increase in property taxes to
pay for a gold-plated school system that was supposed to tempt whites back
into public schools.
Questions like this come before the courts because some busybody decides
that he does not like the way the elected majority has arranged things.
The busybody does not have to do the difficult work of persuading the majority
to change its mind. He need only change the minds of a few judges. Once
judges have worked their will on something, it is lifted completely out
of the normal political process and is beyond the reach of anything short
of a reversal on appeal or a Constitutional amendment. A federal judge's
decision to thwart Proposition 187 in California – which would deny welfare
and social benefits to illegal aliens – is just another example of the
high-handed way judges flout the will of the people.
Sadly, even those who cannot point to any other legitimate suppression
of majorities by courts usually defend the decisions that overturned racial
segregation. Blacks, we are told, are the one worthy example of a minority
legally tyrannized by a democratic majority. Of course, it is now clear
not only that the desegregation decisions were catastrophes, but that they
paved the way for dozens of other fanciful rulings on sex, disability,
citizenship, legal status, and sexual orientation. A terrible error about
race spawned other terrible errors.
Messrs. Quirk and Bridwell point out that judicial tyranny makes policy-making
a ruthless game of winner-take-all. Because a judge does not have to compromise
like a legislator seeking a majority, because he need please no one but
himself (or, eventually, five Supreme Court justices), a judge can enact
laws that virtually no one wants. As the authors explain, no legislature
in the country would have passed an equivalent of the Miranda law, which
requires police to tell crooks they need not confess. No legislature would
have approved of forced busing. Probably not a single state legislature
would have granted a blanket right to an abortion, nor would Congress have
permitted practicing homosexuals in the military. The authors explain that
by assuming dictatorial power, judges destroy democracy: "Our basic reliance
on a system for throwing our representatives out does not work if the ones
we can throw out do not have the real power," they write.
Some Supreme Court justices openly revel in the awesome power they were
never intended to have. William Brennan was not exaggerating when he once
told his law clerks, "With five votes around here you can do anything."
It was also Justice Brennan who justified racial preferences by saying
that "in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently."
Justice Brennan has even announced his intention of undermining the death
penalty in any way that he can, even though execution is clearly anticipated
in the 5th amendment's reference to "capital" crimes, and is supported
by the vast majority of Americans.
How did the majority lose its power? The authors explain that by the
19th century judicial review already had tyrannical potential, but that
judges were much more respectful of majorities. Also, in what the authors
call "an unholy alliance," the other branches of the federal government
accepted the loss of certain powers to the courts because the courts were
vastly increasing the powers of all the branches. Congress could
tolerate judicial review if the Supreme Court obligingly ignored the Tenth
Amendment and ruled that every act of every American was actually interstate
Of course, it is the states that have been most mercilessly bound and
gagged, as Jefferson and others feared they would be. In the 1830s, Sen.
Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri was just one of many who warned that if
the courts could interpret the Constitution, they would exert "despotic
power" that would lead inexorably to "the annihilation of the States."
The 14th amendment, passed over a prostrate former Confederacy, officially
extended federal power over the states for the first time, but annihilation
came later. As late as 1873, in the famous Slaughter-House Cases,
the court refused to declare a state law unconstitutional, since it did
not think it had the power to act as censor of every state act. By 1937,
a bolder court began to interfere directly with local legislation, and
the states began a descent into irrelevance that was only briefly checked
by Southern resistance to forced integration.
Justice William Brennan:
"With five votes around here you can do anything."
It is the disappearance of any but the national majority that has emasculated
the states, just as it has all other smaller jurisdictions. As originally
planned, the United States was to be composed of concentric majorities;
townships, counties, and states made the decisions that mattered most to
most people, and the federal government had little day-to-day business.
However, in a democracy, defining the quorum often defines the results.
Now that the quorum is national rather than local, people who know nothing
about trees tell the people of Oregon how to manage forests, just as people
who knew nothing about blacks told Southerners how to manage race relations.
Nothing is beyond the reach of federal judges.
How can judicial power be curbed? There have been many proposals. Jefferson
thought states had the power to ignore federal laws their legislatures
found unconstitutional. The federal government could then repeal the law
or call a constitutional convention.
Others have suggested that Congress should use the impeachment power
much more freely, not just to throw out criminal judges but to remove those
who overstep their bounds. Theodore Roosevelt, who despised judicial review,
thought that every time the Supreme Court struck down a law or discovered
a new "right" the question should be put on the next national ballot for
the people to decide. Others have proposed that Congress – or a state –
should be able to reestablish any "unconstitutional" law if it can muster
a three-fourths majority.
long for "strict constructionist" judges, who can read the Constitution
as a layman would, but Messrs. Quirk and Bridwell point out that the political
thinking of individual judges is a small problem compared to the unintended
power judges now have, a power "so great that it might corrupt an angel."
Ultimately, though, tinkering with judicial review will not help a people
that has permitted itself to be ruled by the unanswerable will of a few
old men and women. In 1944, Learned Hand wrote that "liberty lies in the
hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no
court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to
Jefferson wrote that a government based on force and not on consent
is "a government of wolves over sheep." By routinely overthrowing the traditions
of the majority, by ignoring its will and thwarting the results of its
deliberations, the judiciary has shown that it does not care about the
consent of the governed. But far more amazing than the power lust of our
black-robed wolves is how little force it takes to drive the sheep.
Would federal troops invade a state that decided not to enforce a ban
on high-capacity handgun magazines, or that told state prisoners they would
have to get through the day without croquet? Jefferson wrote that a people's
chains are always self-imposed.
The authors of this book feel strongly about these questions, and their
passions sometimes show through their otherwise careful prose. One can
almost imagine them leading a corrective operation against the Supreme
Court. And what about Thomas Jefferson who, in his first inaugural
address, spoke of "a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men
from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate
their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from
the mouth of labor the bread it has earned"? It is hard to believe that
the old revolutionary would not lead a rebellion if he were alive
• • •
BACK TO TOP • •
the Civil Rights Activist
by Russell Eisenman
The article in the May issue of American Renaissance
about the Selma-to-Montgomery voting rights march reminds me of some of
my father's experiences as a civil rights advocate. My father, Abram Eisenman,
worked during the 1950s and 1960s for the rights of black people in our
home town of Savannah, Georgia. He was particularly effective in getting
better housing for blacks.
My father ran several times for city council as a civil rights advocate.
On one occasion, his overwhelming support among black citizens seemed to
give him a good chance of winning. His opponent was a segregationist, whose
supporters seemed cocky and who did not make a good effort to get out the
vote. However, an amazing thing happened.
As my father told me after the election, "Hosea Williams [the famous
civil rights leader and associate of Martin Luther King] came to me and
demanded $300 if they were going to support me. I felt it was wrong to
be extorted this way and I turned him down. He then got local blacks and
some outside blacks to come in and campaign for my opponent, the ardent
segregationist. So, I lost the election."
My father died in 1982, and I learned only later about some of the other
problems he had with black leaders. Recently my mother told me that although
blacks were grateful for his help and invited him to their social and political
functions, they also tried to frighten him into giving them money. They
constantly demanded large contributions from him and from the black-oriented
radio station for which he worked.
The radio station refused to pay, and my father was unable to give very
much. He did not make a great deal of money and spent his savings publishing
a newspaper to present his views and advance the cause of blacks. My father
had been a popular disk jockey on the radio station, but some blacks complained
that a white person should not be on the air for a black station, and he
was removed from his job. He then made a living selling ads for the station.
When my father would not give them money, black leaders threatened violence.
Some made death threats. The very group he was trying to help was making
his life miserable. It was one thing to get death threats from the Ku Klux
Klan, who once burned a cross on our lawn, but to be threatened by blacks
might seem to be the last straw. Not for my father. He continued his civil
rights work. The only real change in his life, besides elevated blood pressure,
was to get an unlisted telephone number – not to protect himself from the
Klan but from blacks. The worst of the threats came during the 1960s, when
my brother and I were away at college, but our parents kept this from us.
Part of the
problem was that blacks were starting to emphasize black power, and were
less accepting of whites who helped them. Also, according to the black
power movement, blacks were god-like and whites were devils. Thus, someone
like my father, who was clearly on their side, would be confusing. He did
not fit their stereotype of the evil white man, but they sometimes treated
him the way they had decided all whites should be treated.
It is easy to imagine the loneliness of a white man, working in the
South during the 1950s and 1960s for the rights of blacks. Who would have
thought that the people for whom he sacrificed so much would treat him
so heartlessly? My father certainly had the courage of his convictions,
and I admire his dedication to a cause. However, when I think of him I
cannot help but think of Amy Biehl, the young Stanford graduate who went
to South Africa on a Fulbright scholarship to "fight oppression." In August,
1993, as she drove through a black Cape Town neighborhood, she was dragged
from her car by thugs who killed her because she was white.
Dr. Russell Eisenman is a professor of psychology at McNeese State
University, Lake Charles, Louisiana.
• • •
BACK TO TOP • •
O Tempora, O Mores!
An Important Victory
The current assault on racial preferences is the first time in decades
that whites have acted in their own racial interests. Ever since the 1950s,
whites have lost every battle over race. Although it should never have
been necessary to fight against systematic discrimination against the majority,
whites are winning victories that no one would have predicted only two
or three years ago.
On July 20th, the Board of Regents, which is the governing body of all
California state universities, voted to forbid race and sex preferences
in admissions, hiring, and contracting. California has the largest state
university system in the country, and the decision is likely to be copied
by other states. This important vote was taken under the leadership of
California governor, Pete Wilson, who has made the elimination of racial
preferences a central theme in his campaign for the Republican presidential
The chancellors of all nine of the university's campuses have said they
want to stick with the old system of discrimination. Jesse Jackson, who
is not a resident of California but who led protests anyway, called the
vote "a blatant act of racism." "I do not wish to be colorblind," he said,
adding that society should be "race-caring" rather than "race-neutral."
Leaders of non-white student groups have promised protests and campus disruption
when they return to school in the fall. [Amy Wallace & Dae Lesher,
UC Regents, in historic vote, wipe out affirmative action, LA Times, 7/21/95,
The White House chief of staff, Leon Panetta, promptly announced that
federal funds might be withheld from California – he thinks eliminating
discrimination against whites is a punishable offense – but the Department
of Education admitted unhappily that this could not be done.
Presumably, this vote renders moot a creative consumer-fraud suit that
a lawyer filed recently against the University of California. Allan Favish
pointed out that U.C. law and medical school applications were lying to
applicants when they claimed that the schools did not discriminate on the
basis of sex or race. He did not propose that race and sex preferences
be eliminated; only that the schools correct their false advertising by
including in their applications tables of race, grades, and test scores
of people previously admitted. [William Honan, Preference in admission
is attacked in fraud suit, NYT, 6/7/95, p. B8.]
Back in Washington, DC, the very day before the vote by the University
of California regents, President Bill Clinton gave a long-awaited speech
on affirmative action, which he pronounced "good for America." The speech
was filled with the usual blather:
"The purpose of affirmative action is to give our nation a
way to finally address the systemic exclusion of individuals of talent,
on the basis of their gender or race, from opportunities to develop, perform,
achieve and contribute. Affirmative action is an effort to develop a systematic
approach to open the doors of education, employment, and business development
opportunities to qualified individuals who happen to be members of groups
that have experienced longstanding and persistent discrimination." [Paul
richter, Clinton declares affirmative action is 'good for America,' LA
Times, 7/20/95, p. 1.]
Lessons in Hypocrisy
Public school teachers constantly tell us that their schools are vital
social institutions that we must always improve with more money. However,
in many towns public school teachers are far more likely than other people
to send their own children to private schools. In Baltimore, 43.6 percent
of the teachers send their children to private schools, as opposed to 18.1
percent of the city as a whole. In Boston, the percentages are 48.9 and
29.9; in Cleveland, 52.8 and 25.2; in Grand Rapids, 55 and 27.3; in Toledo,
49.4 and 26.7. In the nation as a whole, black and Hispanic public school
teachers are slightly more likely than white teachers to send their children
to private schools. [Dennis Doyle, Lessons in Hypocrisy, WSJ, 1/13/94.]
In other news, it has been reported that the most rigidly segregated cities
in the United States – Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Indianapolis,
St. Louis, Cincinnati, and Philadelphia – are all in the North, the region
that so loves to instruct the South on how to treat blacks. [Integration
– Slow but Steady, U.S. News and World Report, 2/28/94, p. 8.]
In 1990, New York City was 43 percent white, down from 63 percent in
1970. At this rate, it will be only 35 percent white by the year 2000.
During the 1990s, Hispanics will have gone from 24 to 29 percent, Asians
from seven percent to ten percent, and blacks from 25 percent to 26 percent.
The 30-year decline for whites will have been greatest in the Bronx, where
they were 50 percent of the population in 1970 but will be only 14 percent
in 2000. Hispanics will have gone from 28 percent to 52 percent and will
be the majority. [David Firestone, Major ethnic changes under way, NYT,
3/29/95, p. B1.]
In one of his columns in the New York Post, former mayor Ed Koch
reports on the struggle he had with the New York police department to get
it to release information about the races of crime perpetrators and victims.
He finally learned that in 1993, blacks, who are 25 percent of the city's
population, accounted for 56 percent of all arrests for murder, 62 percent
for rape, and 62 percent for robbery. Blacks and Hispanics together, who
make up about half the city's population, accounted for 90 percent of all
arrests for murder, rape, and robbery. Mr. Koch does not make this point,
but this means that if the city were all white, arrests for these crimes
would decline by 80 percent. Mr. Koch also notes that whereas whites
killed almost no non-whites, 61 percent of white murder victims were killed
by non-whites. [Ed Koch, What are the numbers on interracial crime?, NY
Post, July 14, 1995.]
Cambodians now own about 80 percent of the doughnut shops in California,
and have nearly driven Winchell's Donut Houses – which used to dominate
the market – out of the state. "Where we had one Winchell's shop, they
now have three or four Cambodian shops," explains a Winchell's spokesman;
"They were very happy with a much lesser volume." In Los Angeles, there
is one doughnut shop for every 7,500 residents, as opposed to one for every
30,000, which is the standard in the rest of the country. [Seth Mydans,
Cambodians now rule California's doughnut empire, Seattle Post Intelligencer,
5/29/95, p. A2.]
The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a Washington organization
that preserves historic neighborhoods. One of the areas it is trying to
maintain is the Farish Street District in Jackson, Mississippi, about which
it says this:
"After the Civil War, Farish Street became the heart of a thriving,
self-sufficient African American community. The end of segregation signaled
the decline of independent neighborhoods like Farish Street and today the
area suffers the neglect common to many inner-city communities." [Trust
pamphlet, "America's 11 Most Endangered Historic Places 1995."]
Unemployer of Last Resort
Blacks are more than three times as likely as whites to be dismissed
from federal employment. Hispanics and Asians are dismissed at essentially
the same rate as whites. This news has been widely reported and has prompted
the expected calls for investigation into government "racism." It has been
rarely pointed out that the divergence in firing rates is strictly in the
"misconduct" category, which includes embezzlement, insubordination, and
violence. When federal workers are fired merely for poor job performance
– apparently this sometimes happens – blacks are no more likely to be dismissed
than whites. [Karen de Witt, Blacks Prone to dismissal by the U.S., NYT,
Tyson Beckford is 24 years old and shaves his head. He is also the first
black model to sign an exclusive contract with Ralph Lauren to model the
company's clothing and accessories. "Tyson has an all-American look with
a dramatic edge," explains Mr. Lauren. [NYT, 3/18/95.]
Politics in Paradise
On August 4th, the self-styled head of state of the "Nation of Hawaii"
was arrested on federal charges of harboring a felon. Dennis
Kanahele, who claims that both the federal and state governments are illegal
and have no jurisdiction over native Hawaiians, is the leader of a movement
to take back Hawaii from United States jurisdiction. Mr. Kanahele was accused
of sheltering, and preventing the arrest of a man who, as a member of something
called the Royal Kingdom of Hawaii, was sentenced to 6 1/2 years on jail
for filing false tax statements. The head of state and his followers ignore
traffic summonses and often drive cars with home-made license plates that
say "Hawaiian Sovereign." [Mark Matsunaga, Nation leader Kanahele jailed,
Honolulu Advertiser, 8/3/95, p. 1.] They also like to send notices to state
and federal officials, accusing them of "crimes against humanity" and promising
"final judgment." [Mark Matusnaga, Kanahele bail denied while he awaits
trial, Honolulu Advertiser, Aug. 5, 1995, p. 1.]
Meanwhile, a U.S. government evaluation team has found that corruption
and white collar crime are rampant in American Samoa, and have recommended
that the authority of federal courts be extended to the territory. At present
Samoa is the only American territory over which federal courts do not have
jurisdiction. The territory does, however, have a congressional delegate,
Eni Faleomavaega. He strongly opposes federal jurisdiction which, he says,
will interfere with local customs. Each year, Washington hands over about
$100 million to the territory, and one local custom appears to be the diversion
of millions of these dollars into private pockets. [Kirk Spitzer, U.S.
probers charge corruption rampant in American Samoa, Honolulu advertiser,
8/3/95, p. 1.]
Flocking to Europe
British nationalists who oppose further non-white immigration to Europe
have found a surprising new ally: sheep. Britons
are sentimental about animals, and there is growing concern about the hundreds
of thousands of British sheep that are exported to France to have their
throats slit by Muslims. France's 5,000,000 Muslims have been carrying
out so much ritual slaughter in apartments, houses, and on street corners
that French authorities have set aside public lands as killing fields,
especially during Islamic festivals. On the holiest days, as many as 100
British sheep an hour may be bled to death. For many Britons, this gruesome
practice has come to be seen as an unmistakable sign that Arab immigrants
are hopelessly alien and should have no place in Europe. [Sylvia Noble,
ritual slaughter: an alien practice that disgraces europe, Spearhead (England),
July, 1995, p. 16.]
Making the Grade
Since 1984, Florida has required college students to pass something
called the College Level Academic Skills Test in order to get a junior
college degree or to become a junior at a four-year college. Sixty-four
percent of whites pass the test on the first try but only 40 percent of
Hispanics and 28 percent of blacks do, so the test has the usual critics.
The Florida state legislature has now devised a complicated set of grading
and testing criteria that will let many students bypass the test. Officials
at the Florida Department of Education say that the examination is designed
to test 10th-grade abilities. [Kit Lively, Florida eases rule that
students pass test to become juniors, The Chronicle of higher education,
6/2/95, p. A26.]
The state of Georgia has decided to deport criminal aliens rather than
keep them on as guests of the state. By kicking out hundreds of foreign
crooks, the state will either save $6 million a year or make the jail space
available to American crooks. [Georgia to rid itself of alien convicts,
SF Chron, 6/7/85, p. A10.]
Anticipating Amy Biehl
A new book called Thy Will Be Done blames Nelson Rockefeller
for exploiting the third world and explains how Mr. Rockefeller's son,
Michael, was killed and eaten by third worlders when he went off to save
them from his father. In 1961, while Nelson Rockefeller was governor of
New York, Michael was in New Guinea sheltering natives from the ravages
of Western materialism. During an expedition to collect tribal art, he
had a boating accident and was forced ashore. As he emerged from the water,
one of the locals speared him in the chest. To quote from the book: "He
was still alive when taken up the river, killed with an ax, and in the
religious manner of cannibals seeking the strength of their victims, cooked
with sago palm and eaten." [Richard Johnson, Gory saga of a Rockefeller
death, NY Post, May 27, 1995, p. 6.]
Battle is Drawn
The New York State Senate has passed a bill that would close state universities
to illegal aliens. An estimated 4,400 illegals cost the state about $35
million a year. The bill must still pass the state's lower house,where
one assemblyman predicted that it had "no chance." "Where was this taken
from – Nazi Germany?" asks Assemblyman Edward Sullivan, who is chairman
of the Higher Education Committee. [Chronicle of Higher Education, 6/2/95,p.
Cracking Down on Police Racism
In 1986, Congress passed laws setting long minimum sentences for crack
cocaine users. Liberal judges and lawyers have noticed that 96 percent
of the people convicted under these laws are either black or Hispanic and
have concluded that this can only reflect police racism. In July, a federal
appeals court actually overturned the crack-dealing conviction of
a black gang member, arguing that federal prosecutors had not proven that
racial patterns in convictions were not the result of racial bias.
No one doubts that Nolan Reese, a member of the Crips street gang in San
Diego, was a crack dealer but his 14-year prison sentence has now been
struck down and he is a free man. Prosecutors have argued, vainly, that
they arrest non-whites under the crack laws because non-whites break them.
[Dan Weikel, Gang member's crack conviction reversed, LA Times, 7/28/95,
A Thousand Points of Light
These days, good sense on forbidden subjects can crop up nearly anywhere.
Donald Vroon is editor of American Record Guide, which is devoted
to classical music. In the MayJune issue, in an excellent article on American
cultural decline entitled "Cultural Suicide," he writes:
have been taught to label certain ideas as passé and old-fashioned,
but on what logical basis have we rejected them? They have never been proved
wrong; instead, our own messy time proves all the old fogies right. In
the 1950s we were shocked when the old fogies said that the integration
of a race that was culturally advanced with one that was backward could
only hurt the overall cultural level of our society. It is very clear now
that they were right . . . ." [Donald Vroon, Cultural Suicide II, American
Record Guide, May/June, 1995, p. 57.]
Meanwhile, the American correspondent for the Australian paper,
the Sydney Morning Herald, has written a series of articles about
taboos in the United States. One is a grimly factual piece called "The
Race War of Black Against White," in which he writes that "for the past
30 years a large segment of black America has waged a war of violent retribution
against white America." Correspondent Paul Sheehan points out that the
average black is about 50 times more likely to commit violent crime against
a white than vice versa, and that in the past 30 years blacks have killed
over 40,000 whites – more than the number of soldiers who died in the Korean
War. "Black Americans have committed at least 170 million crimes against
white Americans in the past 30 years," he concludes; "It is the great,
defining disaster of American life and American ideals since World War
II." [Paul Sheehan, The race war of black against white, The Sydney Morning
Herald, May 20, 1995.]
The Irish Times, like most other newspapers, noticed that many
South African blacks cheered for the all-white South African rugby team
as it went on to win the world championship. Unlike most other papers,
it also noted that the country is so wracked with crime and racial divisions
that it is tottering on the brink of collapse. Its conclusion: "By the
time of the next world cup, South Africa will not be recognisable; this
is the last hurrah for European South Africa with its rugby and its homes
and gardens." [Kevin Myers, European South Africa's Last Hurrah, The Irish
Times, June 3, 1995]
It Must Have Been the License Plates
On July 13th, two blacks were driving along Interstate 285 near Atlanta
in a stolen jeep. Two accomplices were driving in another car. The accomplices
pulled ahead of a motor home and slowed down, forcing the motor home to
slow. The jeep pulled up alongside the motor home and a passenger blasted
away at the white driver and his son, sending both to the hospital. The
perpetrators were caught and the attack has been big news in Atlanta, but
police have not determined a motive for the shootings. Nor has the driver,
James Hess. "I don't have any enemies," he said, "unless they just don't
like people with Florida tags, I don't know why [they did it]." [Don Plummer
& Doug Payne, Motive in I-285 case may remain mystery, police say,
Atlanta Constitution, July 20, 1995.]
Not Athens After All
The Carter Center, founded by former President, Jimmy Carter, has been
forced to conclude that the June elections in Haiti were essentially a
sham. Ordinarily Mr. Carter and his center are squarely behind President
Jean-Bertrand Aristide and everything he does, but even they could not
stomach the government's behavior (see previous month's "O Tempora"). Mr.
Carter was no doubt grieved when some of Mr. Aristide's supporters said
that the center's attempts to ensure fair elections were intolerable interference.
Robert Pastor of the Carter Center does not recommend rerunning the
entire election; only most of it. He notes that many opposition parties
were so disgusted by government high-handedness that they will boycott
runoff elections to be held later this year, and warns President Clinton
that if he endorses the runoffs as planned, the United States will have
aligned itself squarely with a fraudulent government. [Steven Greenhouse,
Election monitor criticizes haitian vote for widespread fraud, NYT, July
21, 1995, p. A5.]
America's most famous drunk driver, Rodney King, has racked up his fifth
arrest since that famous 1991 encounter with the Los Angeles Police Department.
The first collar was just two months after the videotaped beating, when
he was feeling chipper enough to solicit a transvestite prostitute and
tried to run over two vice squad men who stopped the fun. Since then, he
has been caught for drunk driving twice, once after crashing into a wall.
He has also been arrested twice for assaulting his wife, most recently
by driving off before she was completely out of the car. "She did a cartwheel,"
explained a police spokesman.
The officers who subdued him in 1991 are still behind bars, but Mr.
King has yet to serve a day in prison. Any other American would long ago
have lost his license and been locked up. As the New York Post pointed
out in a May 27 editorial, "Rodney King is gong to get into a car and kill
some innocent person one of these days," and it will be entirely due to
the cowardice of whites. [The Unstoppable Rodney King, New York Post, 5/27/95.
The Rodney King Chronicles (Cont.), NYP, 7/17/95.]
Let the Employer Beware
There are five "historically black" universities in North Carolina,
and all have problems getting students to graduate. They have decided that
it is discouraging for them to have failing grades on their transcripts,
so the schools have made it as easy as possible to avoid them; students
can retake a course as often as they like, and if they pass it only the
passing grade is recorded. [AP, Paper: black universities lenient on grading,
Detroit Free Press, july 10, 1995, p. A1.]
The Self-Esteem Defense
Lemrick Nelson is the young black who is likely to have killed Yankel
Rosenbaum in 1991 during anti-Jewish riots in Crown Heights, New York. He
was acquitted on state murder charges, despite overwhelming evidence against
him. The federal government, only after much prodding by Jews, agreed to
try him again on civil rights charges. Mr. Nelson's lawyers are preparing
a tear-jerker defense, pointing out that he was an "unplanned child" who
was "ignored by his mother during his infancy." They go on to explain his
crime: "[Mr. Nelson] never felt secure, but also never learned the sense
of boundaries normally taught by caring, responsible parents. Not surprisingly,
Lemrick suffered from low self-esteem and has acted out his frustrations
in ways which, albeit certainly inappropriate, enabled him to finally gain
attention from adults." ['Low self-esteem' defense, NY Post, 7/22/95.]
The Shrunken Brain Defense
A Mr. Banda, ex-president of Malawi, has been charged with the 1983
murder of four political opponents. His defenders claim that he is unfit
to stand trial because he has a shrunken brain and is so deaf he will not
understand court proceedings. [Malawi's ex-president is unfit, WSJ, 5/30/95,
Crime and Drugs are More Fun
A July 18th New York Times article about public schools in Japan
notes that unlike schools in the United States, "they offer discipline,
orderly classes, safe corridors, rigorous training in basics like reading
and mathematics, and practical lessons in physics . . . ." It goes on to
note that they "provide a crime-free and drug-free environment," and that
discipline is strict. Straining to find something to criticize – after
all, multiculturalism must have some advantages – the Times
pounced on something to play up in the story's headline: "Japan's Schools:
Safe, Clean, Not Much Fun." [Nicholas Kristof, Japan's schools: safe, clean,
not much fun, NYT, July 18, 1995, p. 1.]
Feds Do Something Useful
In the August "O Tempora" section we reported on an INS campaign to
arrest and deport illegal aliens in the southeastern United States. The
one-month project is now over, and 2,078 illegals from 26 different countries
have been deported from Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and Florida. Before
the INS sweep was even finished, more than 300 suddenly vacant jobs had
been handed back to Americans. [AP INS says four-week roundup netted more
than 2,000 illegal workers, Daily Mountain Eagle (Jasper, Ala), July 4,
1995.] Next INS stops: Texas and California?
It's a Black Thing . . .
The O.J. Simpson murder trial grinds along, producing a steady stream
of absurdities. One of the latest was an exchange between Christopher Darden
of the prosecution and John Cochran of the defense, both black. Mr. Darden
asked a witness whether a voice he had overheard sounded like that of a
black man. Mr. Cochran objected to the suggestion that it is possible to
tell a person's race from the way he speaks.
"I resent that statement," he said. "You can't tell by somebody's voice
whether they [sic] sound black. That's a racist statement." [Attorneys
in simpson case, cochran and darden get in heated argument of 'racist question,'
Jet, July 31, 1995.]
National Front Victories
Candidates from Jean-Marie Le Pen's anti-immigrant party, the National
Front, took control of three French cities in recent municipal elections.
The most significant victory was in Toulon, which is France's 13th largest
city, with a population of 170,000 people. There would have been more victories
for the front if other political parties had not joined forces in some
cities to defeat the "racists." The former socialist prime minister, Laurent
Fabius called on French singers and other artists to refuse to perform
Jean-Marie Le Chevallier, the new mayor, says that his city will grant
systematic preferences to French citizens. North Africans and blacks, of
whom there are now about 20,000, will not be made to leave, but he hopes
that if no more new subsidized housing is not built for them and if French
citizens get priority for current benefits, immigrants will go elsewhere.
One of the mayor's first acts was to clear out the open-air market where
Africans sell trinkets. The city will set up permanent stalls for French
artisans. [Ray Moseley, Far rightists call shots in French city, chicago
Tribune, July 2, 1995, p. 13.]
Meanwhile, the national government has tried not to let the National
Front steal clean away with one of the best issues in the country. It is
calling attention to its tough, new deportation policies. In July, it ejected
several plane-loads of illegals and promised many similar operations. Newspapers
and "human rights" groups yelled, but polls indicate that a large majority
of the French are happy to see illegals deported, especially those from
the third world. [Marlise Simons, France moves on deporting illegal aliens,
NYT, July 29, 95, p. 4.]
[Ashe statue to be put on historic boulevard, Clarion-Ledger, July
London Faces the Facts
The London police
commissioner has reported young blacks commit 80 percent of the city's
muggings. He noted that in just five years street robbery had increased
from 13,000 a year to 23,000 a year, and is now much more common in fancy
residential areas. The commissioner, Paul Condon, is known to be a liberal,
and couched his report in terms of "young black people, who have been excluded
from school and/or are unemployed," but this did not stop the usual crowd
from telling him he should have kept his mouth shut. [William Touhy, London
cop blames blacks for muggings, Chicago Sun-Times, July 9, 1995, p. 32.]
It is one of the truisms of modern times that the fact that blacks are
rejected for home mortgages more often than whites is proof that bankers
are racists. Of
course, if bankers were holding blacks to unfairly high credit standards
it would mean that the blacks who do manage to get loans should have lower
default rates than whites. The Federal Reserve Bank has finally investigated
220,000 mortgages to see how black default rates compare to white. They
found that blacks, whether they live in cities or in suburbs, default on
their loans at twice the rate whites do. This suggests that there has been
so much pressure on bankers to make loans to blacks that they are taking
risks with depositors' money and making unsafe loans. [Paul Craig Roberts,
No signs of discrimination by lenders, Houston Chronicle, Feb. 16, 1995,
The Chitlins Test
The head of campus security at Kentucky State University in Frankfort
is a black man who wants his white employees to be "sensitive" to black
culture. He therefore gave them an examination that has come to be known
as the chitlins test. It asked test-takers to explain what blacks mean
when they talk about "fronting," "chitlins," or a "crib." A white security
guard filed suit against the university, claiming that the test was a form
of racial harassment. [Ken Hamblin, Chitlins – multiculturalism run amok,
Denver Post, July 23, 1995.] For those of our readers who are white, chitlins
– more properly, chitterlings – are hog intestines cooked for food.
Out on His Ear
A circuit judge in Cook County, Illinois, has been relieved of trial
duties and will take counselling because of "inappropriate and troubling"
remarks about Hispanics. James Smith was listening to lawyers claiming
that a young Hispanic's environment had contributed to his poor school
record; his grandfather, for example, once fired shots at his father. Judge
Smith then made the following impermissible remarks:
"Of course, this is a common practice among Hispanics. I'm
speaking as a criminal judge now. Every New Year's I had to dismiss cases
because it was common for them to step out and shoot at anything that was
out there. You're not telling me anything. I mean, I'm saying I understand
what you're saying. I guess what I'm saying is I'm not so sure that is
not unusual." [Philip O'Connor, Remarks about hispanics lead to judge's
transfer, Chi Sun-times, July 15, 1995, p. 41.]
The New South Africa
In the last years of apartheid, blacks thought that refusing to pay
utility bills was a noble act of political protest. Now that the country
has a black president, the noble acts continue. The government claims to
be astonished by this, and has mounted a campaign to convince people to
pay. "Who can be proud of not paying for housing and services now that
we have a democratic government?" asks a television ad, which argues that
paying rent and electric bills helps build South Africa. The utilities
have even mounted traveling road shows to take the lets-pay message to
people with no television, but with little success.
Slowly, the government is turning back to the bad old ways of the white
man: shutting off dead-beats. Oddly, this seems to work. Not even a New
York Times reporter could find much talk of building South Africa among
people lined up in Soweto to pay their bills. "If they are making my lights
off, then I pay," was a typical sentiment. [Suzanne Daley, In south africa
a culture of resistance dies hard, NYT, July sometime, 1995.]
Meanwhile, white businessmen are so desperate to get blacks on the payroll
that they pay them 20 to 50 percent more than they would similarly educated
whites. Many help-wanted ads are quite straightforward about seeking blacks.
All this is in anticipation of affirmative action laws that have
not yet been enacted, but which everyone expects to be passed soon. [Suzanne
Daley, In south africa; new jobs, little respect, NYT, Aug 3, 1995, p.
Ivy League Confederates
With one important
excepted category, Harvard University has erected memorials to all alumni
who died on the battlefield, including one who fought for Nazi Germany.
The university does not, however, honor Confederates, even though one third
of the Harvard men who died in the War Between the States fought for the
South. Yale and Princeton, on the other hand, pay equal tribute to their
Confederate and Union dead. [Confederate memorial splits Harvard, Commercial
Appeal (Memphis), July 5, 1995.]
Integrating Memorial Avenue
Richmond, Virginia now has a black majority, which is reflected in the
makeup of its city council. In July, the council voted to erect a statue
of Arthur Ashe, the black tennis player, on Memorial Ave., a street heretofore
reserved for statues of Confederate heroes. For some time the city government
has been threatening to cock a snook at the Confederacy by integrating
Memorial Ave., but this time it is likely to happen.
• • •
BACK TO TOP • •
You Can Help
Sam Francis is just about the only syndicated
columnist in America who writes honestly about race, immigration, and the
challenges facing our country – and he has been punished for it. His column
has been infuriating liberals for years, but
one that was taken – mistakenly – to be a defense of slavery
was too much for his employer, the Washington Times. Dr. Francis
has been fired as staff columnist at the paper and was given a significant
cut in pay. His column continues to be syndicated, but the Washington
Times will run it only when it chooses to.
Please write a letter to the paper objecting
to this treatment of one of the most important voices in America today.
It is very unusual for a newspaper executive to get as many as 20 or 30
letters on any subject, so your letter will have an effect. A show
of support is the least we can offer a man who has written several times
for American Renaissance.
Please write to:
Wesley Pruden, Editor in Chief
3600 New York Ave. N.E.
Washington, DC 20002.
• • •
BACK TO TOP • •
E T T E R S F R O M R E A D E
Sir – I have read with interest your continuing commentary on the impending
demise of affirmative action, but am still waiting for you to point out
that the Supreme Court justice who writes least stupidly about race is
the only black, Clarence Thomas. He is the first justice since 1954 to
write that separate may not be unequal:
"Mere de facto segregation (unaccompanied by discriminatory inequalities
in educational resources) does not constitute a continuing harm after the
end of de jure segregation. `Racial isolation' itself is not a harm; only
state-enforced segregation is. After all, if separation itself is a harm,
and if integration therefore is the only way that blacks can receive a
proper education, then there must be something inferior about blacks."
In the same decision, Justice Thomas wrote, "there is no reason to think
that black students cannot learn as well when surrounded by members of
their own race as when they are in an integrated environment." He has also
shown sympathy with the view that if separate is inherently unequal, it
was wrong of the 1954 court in Brown v. Board of Education to rely
on sociological data that was supposed to prove that segregated schools
were bad for black egos. If separate is inherently unequal and wrong, no
data should be necessary to prove it so.
It is very useful to have a black man making these arguments, limited
though they may be. Supreme Court justices are just as susceptible to racial
intimidation as anyone else, and it is good for them to face a black who
argues the "conservative" position.
Roger Carlton, Kansas City, Mo.
Sir – In your June issue you are mistaken to write that Jean Raspail
was a "littleknown author" when he wrote The Camp of the Saints.
His 1960 novel, known in English as Welcome, Honorable Visitors,
was translated into nine languages and in 1970 – three years before publication
of The Camp of the Saints – he was awarded the "Jean Walthes Prize"
by the French Academy, for "the whole of his work."
S.E. Parker, London, England
Sir – I thought Michael Masters' two-part essay was, well, masterful.
In a sane world, it would have appeared in The Atlantic, although
if The Atlantic were willing to publish racialist treatises they
would probably not even need to be written. My one reservation about Mr.
Masters is that he does not seem to have a vision of race and culture that
goes beyond the material. I wonder what some of your more religious writers,
like Father Tacelli or Rabbi Schiller, might add to (or subtract from)
Mr. Masters' view.
Name Withheld, Vancouver, Canada
Sir – You usually write as though the Hispanic conquest of the United
States is limited to the Southwest. Your readers may be surprised to know
that the third most-listened-to radio station in the New York City area
broadcasts in Spanish. Whereas there used to be only one or two Spanish
radio stations they now number in the double digits. Moreover, on our cable
system, there are three Spanish television networks with a total
of about 65 stations. The flags of Puerto Rico, Cuba, the Dominican Republic,
etc. fly from car antennae and rear view mirrors. The commonwealth status
of Puerto Rico only fuels the Hispanic invasion.
Ken Reynolds, Bronx, N.Y.
Sir – An article in the July 9th San Francisco Chronicle reports,
as if it were big news, the well-known fact that men are more likely than
women to be both geniuses and mental retards. More specifically, seven
of eight people in the highest one percent of 10 scores are men, and the
same disproportions are found at the low end of the curve. What was the
headline chosen for the article? "More Men Are Dumber Than Was Believed."
Of course, the article said nothing about blacks, who probably make up
a large proportion of those who are "dumber than was believed."
William Pepperell, Hayward, Calif.
Sir – In the August issue, you noted a correction that had appeared
in the Sacramento Bee. Apparently, someone had written about putting
the state budget "back in the African-American" rather than "back in the
black," and the paper published a correction. I would love to know if this
was an idiotic but wellmeaning error, or whether some rogue typesetter
decided to have a joke on the paper. I recall years ago that a typesetter
at, I believe, the Boston Globe gave the headline "More Mush From
the Wimp" to a story about a speech by President Jimmy Carter. On the other
hand, during Nelson Mandela's tour of the United States, one gushing young
reporter referred to him as an "African-American," so there is certainly
ample stupidity in the press corps.
M. Cortineaux, Lake Charles, Lou.
Sir – In the August issue you seem surprised that American blacks do
not howl about present-day slavery in Africa the way they howled about
white rule in South Africa. For them to do so would require that they care
about other blacks. I suspect they care only about extracting advantages
from guilt-ridden whites.
Stanley Dean, Boise, Ida.
• • •
BACK TO TOP • •